tv [untitled] November 25, 2011 5:30pm-6:00pm PST
we will do a bunch of work that we do not even have to do. and you will see copies of letters are attached to my brief that show a series of negotiations over the years. something was mentioned about confidential discussions. those are my letters. i authorized to show you them. we said we would do all the work for them, just let us onto the property. we will give you insurance and what we need to do to make -- to fix the debt -- the deck. those offers speak for themselves. they rejected them to. a few of the appellants arguments i wanted to address -- in terms of the authorization, there was a slight typo in my brief. i want to point you to the fact that 50 lansing is a condominium
project and is covered by the homeowners association. the authorizing manager for the board has letters attached as exit g -- exhibit g. i have heard from him 10 or 15 times saying that the board is anxious to get this issue resolved, that the notice of violation dealt with, and also we would like to paint the side of the building but we cannot. that is the last finishing part of the was mentioned a moment ago. we cannot take it because we do not have access. the intent was, as part of our final work on the deck, we would obtain access to pay the side of the building. in terms of the permit and stating the proper address, the building code is clear that you
do not need separate permits because there is no -- because separate base structures are not involved. the permit has both addresses on a. again, it is simply going in to remove some pieces of wood that are no longer doing anything, just sitting there on the property. it seems silly that we are here arguing about a permit to remove some pieces of wood. that is what we are doing. all the prior work, the construction and underpinning work, that was authorized by the prior owner. there was nothing inappropriate done. agreements have attached to your brief period in terms of the new work, the request for information, we talked a year and a half ago about a possible settlement and ways we could resolve this issue. a cash consideration, getting work done. i am still trying to find out
answers to his questions. i have asked for it -- ask for copies of their estimates for construction work which i have not received. that is not the issue here. we are talking about a single permit. we're not going to go on the owner's property without permission. this permit does not give us the right to do that. we need their permission or need to get their permission to go on to the property. your time is being used as leverage for settlement negotiations rather than to deal with a legitimate building permits issued. i am happy to answer any questions. >> you wanted with the e-mail you were speaking about on the overhead, you could put it there, reference it, and it could be on the record. >> thank you. this is my first opportunity to appear before you, so thank you for that. commissioner fung: do you concur with him that the pieces of what
you want to remove are on 15 guy st's property and. >> we missed was some years. there may be a few inches on a 50 lansing, but the majority is on 15 guy st. for your reference, the entire issue came up because a notice of violation was filed. >> thank you. >> thank you. president goh: mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners. joseph duffey. reading the brief, this has been
going on for quite a few years. i see a building permit simply to remove some boards or shoring if you want to call it that. they should of been taken out when the building was finished. if access is provided, but i'm not sure if that was the case or not. all i see is a building permit simply to take those pieces of wood from that area. the complaint was there was damage to the property. the contractor did not finish the work. he left debris among the underpinning at the back. the notice of violation preferences a two by four wall. i am a little bit confused from
reading that. i do not know what that means. i'm just reading through the brief as well. i will be available for any questions if you have them. vice president garcia: what is the second one that's violation monitoring -- what does that mean? >> i do not know. vice president garcia: had you go from looking at this to all this involves is removing some what it? how'd you get to that? >> the contractor did not finish the work, left debris and underpinning on the back. sometimes if you're building a building and cannot get in next door, you have to move on. but you really should not -- you need to work together with the neighbors to try to get this piece of wood out of there. agreement states that it needs
to be removed. as you all know, in san francisco, when there is an existing building, sometimes decks rest on a neighbor's property. all of a sudden, someone decides it wants to demolish the building. something needs to be sorted out. we do need to see a building permit to support this deck. we definitely need that. the other question is the permit being on the wrong address. it is connected to the building at 40 lansing, then i would say that the permit is on the proper address. if it encroaches on to that
other property, maybe it is a simple issue. from our point of view, if that forming is connected to the wall of lansing st., the permit is properly issued. >> is that the kind of thing dbi would go out and see it? do a visit and take a look? >> we could do that. definitely. sometimes it is hard to tell if it is 1 inch, if we are talking about 1 inch, it is really hard to tell. vice president garcia: you said something about a permit the being to be pulled for the deck. is that for 15 guy or 40 lansing? >> 15 guy. we almost got there but we did
not get there. just the last part. if it is a it deck repair, i do not know if it is a firewall issue? but it looks to be in bad condition based on what i saw in the breeze. it may need to be rebuilt completely. >> i believe that 15 guy could authorize 40 lansing to file for the permit and take care of the deck. vice president garcia: all fully 15 guy will allow 50 lansing on the property. if they decide they do not want to, what happens? >> it will have to go to court and get some sort of order to do that. that is a problem for us. if the other side says they are
not letting them on the property, a civil issue comes into play. that happens a lot. getting the forms out of their is not a safety hazard. they should be gone. i would be more concerned about this deck being used for people walking up and down the stairs. i heard something about a sliding door and a four-foot drop. that worries me as well. >> any more questions? president goh: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we will give you three minutes of rebuttal, mr. buscovich. >> i am property owner for the -- i am council for the property
owner. my involvement in this case is relatively new, given the history of the dispute. this permit was told in the days shortly thereafter from reform retention. we did not have an opportunity to confer before this was told. we were not notified. there is a bigger principle that this order should be concerned about. the idea that someone can go into the department of building inspection and, over the counter, pay for a permit for someone else's property. it is contrary to code, policy, and there is a civil dispute that underlies this appeal. when not asking you to resolve it, to get involved in the settlement discussions. quite frankly, it is inappropriate for that to be in the other side's brief. it is not an appropriate subject of this body writ in the issues are the legal issues that were raised about the brief, the propriety of filing for a permit
that crosses every property line, and the incorrect statements that stated there was no such work. does the building across the property line was the specific question on the form. the answer in this application was no. the question had been answered yes. i doubt this permit would have been issued over the county -- over the counter. we have asked for plans and a clear description of the work. i believe these property owners deserve that. that is all we are asking. vice president garcia: the nob is for removing wood from 15 g uy. what plans do you need to do that? >> we need to know what is going to look like after the wood is removed. the structural engineer is the person primarily responsible for
this appeal. the issue is the structural integrity of my client's house and the safety of the resident in that house. they are pulling would out from underneath the deck without a concurrent plan for how it is going to be replaced and what is going to be built on my client's side. we have to work together to ensure safety. that is my concern. vice president garcia: thank you. >> a couple of other things that are important. i am a little surprised that mr. barios would reference that opinion without the department of building inspection coming out. they should come out and take a look. you are looking at the application that admits it
crosses the property line. they are showing the owner as the development company. there is a permit filled out wrong the second time. in a brief when we pointed it out, they wrote back to us at the president of the hoa see attached g. i read a couple of times and is the president of the management company. there is nothing in here at all. it is not subject to this board, but i did show what we would have to do when we are all said and done. if they dig out their floorboards, there is a whole issue with lateral support which is way beyond where we are here. you cannot just dig out framing. and have a deck sitting on the air as the soil settles out.
>> thank you. >> just a few things in response. he said that his client was not notified before the permit was told corrine that is false. at the august 18 dbi hearing, he was there. the representative said you would need to pull the permit. we said absolutely. we want to resolve this and we would like to pull the permit. that is on public record. i am not sure what he is trying to do in terms of slamming the permit and replying that some statement was made. the question was, will the building extend over the property line? of course it will not. it was held in accordance with the original plans. i said the form work that was
permitted under the underpinning agreement, that is probably on 15 guy place. that is not in dispute. in terms of the president of the hoa, i told you that was a typo. but he is the president of the management company and the letter was clear that he has authority. that is a red herring. why should you of all the permit? a lot of things have been said. this is a single issue. i think you should all voted because it was properly issued. it is being used by the appellant as leverage in a civil proceeding, which is not appropriate. i think you should upfolded because dbi properly looked at it and made a decision. i am telling you that, obviously, anyone who goes in and does work on a piece of property, if that war was one to be connected to something that was caused structural problems, that contractor would be moving and acting at their own risk. i can assure you that access
will be legally and properly obtained before there is any work done on 15 guy place. i want to make clear that we have tried for almost three years to work out an agreement with the owners that involve possible payments of cash, possible doing a list of work, and those offers are now off the table. we are willing to continue our settlement discussions with them. since this is a public hearing, i want to make clear that there is no offer pending the can be accepted. we are happy to meet with them to work something out that is fair to them. i am happy to answer any other questions. >> is there any issue with providing what is being asked today? plans, surveys, these kinds of things? >> dbi did not require any. i am not aware of the need for any triet if for some reason the dbi required it, we would be
happy>> you said that dbi propey look at this. >> it being the notice of violation. >> what was the level of review? >> it is my understanding that there were multiple inspections and they went back and looked at the original plans. i am not sure. we did consult. at a hearing, at a public forum, what would you like us to do to resolve this? that was the response. >> at the photos in exhibit h, do those show the woods that the permit is meant to remove from
the neighboring property? >> those are pre-construction photos. >> i wonder if you could take a look at exhibit e appellants brief, 2 c if b -- see if the wood you are talking about is depicted there. >> do you want to put it up on the overhead? maybe you can indicate the wood you are speaking about that is meant to be removed. >> is that the photo you are referring to? >> i do not know if that is the wood to be removed. >> i honestly do not know. i could not tell you whether that or anything else is the
subject of the n.o.v. since i did not issue the n.o.v. >> ed is not likely that particular would. it is usually on the property owner'of property. >> i was just wondering if we can see a picture of the wood. thank you. >> thank you. >> anything further? >> i am not sure where you are going with this one. i would like to go out there and take some more photographs. i am not sure myself by
reading. i am reading about a six by 12- foot wall. that was by somebody from our department. >> perhaps the terminology is not correct. that is not necessarily assuring. the shoring is the system that is going towards the underground of the building. also, to shore the excavation. this piece sounds like it is used to form something. >> i would expect concrete on the other side of the wood. >> no one has spoken to the fact that if this wood is removed, what would it do to be structured? i am not sure anything what
happened if we took the wood out. if they said it would not be compromised, it would almost seem like any agreement that they came to would have to be done. this permit would. it should not have anything to do with the deck support. there is not enough information on the permit. i do not the catplans wou -- that plans would have been required from our department. you definitely would not need plans for that. if there is a property issue, then we would ask for plans. >> thank you.
those are your photos that i have been asking about. >> they have been covered up by the appellant. >> we are paying attention. we did notice. >> sitting on the shore boards. you can look at this photo and go oh, shit. >> of language notwithstanding, can you point out the wood? >> this deck is sitting on their shores. >> i think it is cutting off. >> let me hold it. >> you cannot help me anymore. you can clearly see, they are hanging off our deck. here is a great one.
this is the back. there used to be a deck here. all that there is now is a sliding door and air. there is no deck. it has been removed by them. >> what is the wood that is meant to be removed? >> i do not know what they are taking out. you read the language of it and they are taking out these posts. they were put in to shore up the deck. this is underneath our building. >> point to that post again. what is that post sitting on? >> that is part of the shoring. >> you do not know what needs to be removed. i thought that you had filed a
complaint. >> i did not file a complaint. i have no idea. i do not know who filed the complaint. i got involved when they wanted to do this work. you can look at photographs and you can see that this is on our property. this is a great photograph clearly showing that they are doing work underneath our building. this actually shows them working underneath our building. >> before you go away, i want to refer you to the first page of your brief. the first sentence of the second paragraph, will you read that? >> yes. >> do you still maintain that? the appeal is a simple case that began in 2003.
i do not think it has been very simple. >> it is simple if you cannot file a permit on somebody else's property. >> we are done unless there is a question. >> i wanted to clarify in terms of procedure. not trying to r beude or anything like that. >> mr. sanchez, could you shed some light on these issues? >> i think we have a picture of what the existing conditions look like. if i could have the overhead please. that is the subject property. this is the adjacent. this is the walled that is my understanding that the per matter should have had a stucco finish. i don't know how one would
remove the work that has been done without going on the appellant's property. that has helped me understand better. it is within the downtown residential zoning district that allows 100% lot coverage. the north side of guy place. this fronts the south side. they would be allowed 100% coverage. i do not see the issue of placing decks and allowing a fire wall. we have not seen a building permit that allows for that. >> thank you. >> i am almost afraid to say, but the matter is submitted.
>> comments, commissioners? >> we worked our way through the hyperbole, you would think that there would be a basis for some kind of settlement. it is difficult for me to think of a small deck and a stair surcharge against a concrete wall requiring case ions. since i talked this particular role -- particular structural engineer how to do his framing, i am sure he knows better than me now. it does not strike me as fact pertinent as to what is before us.
there is no doubt that a bank is supposed to removal of materials on somebody else's property and you do not have authorization to access it, the permit is sort of void and mute. -- moot. i believe the attorney alluded to it, but it was not stated extensively that the previous agreement still applied. for such a limited scope of work, i would think that there has got to be a solution. we would ask